Coal produces about 33% of global electricitySolar and wind produce 8–9% eachElectricity meets about 20% of total energy demandhttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/coal-still-powers-more-electricity/
-
@dnkboston well, that's it. China controls 80% of the global solar market and 70% of the wind power market, and a growing slice of the EV market ... all made with coal!
Even with coal electricity the energetic amortization of solar panels is 1–3 years, hence until then they cleanly replace fossil electricity production, after that they are zero and provide a net reduction of carbon emissions during the remaining 15-30 years of their lifetime.
-
Even with coal electricity the energetic amortization of solar panels is 1–3 years, hence until then they cleanly replace fossil electricity production, after that they are zero and provide a net reduction of carbon emissions during the remaining 15-30 years of their lifetime.
1. China's usage of coal is projected to *grow* through 2030. I don't live in China, so as such, I don't think I have a right to say everything evens out because of the efficiency of the panels. Coal pollution affects the global atmosphere, but first it damages the local ecosystems.
2. It is my understanding that many panels--particularly those that are cheaply made--last closer to a decade.
-
1. China's usage of coal is projected to *grow* through 2030. I don't live in China, so as such, I don't think I have a right to say everything evens out because of the efficiency of the panels. Coal pollution affects the global atmosphere, but first it damages the local ecosystems.
2. It is my understanding that many panels--particularly those that are cheaply made--last closer to a decade.
The important question is: how would Chinese emissions rise if they were _not_ also world leaders in renewables? Their installation of new solar and wind dwarfs the rest of the world.
At the same time: what is the production of new solar panels and wind turbines in the US and the EU? Negligible in comparison (for solar anyway), yet both regions still consume huge amounts of coal and there isn't even an increased push to install more renewables.
-
The important question is: how would Chinese emissions rise if they were _not_ also world leaders in renewables? Their installation of new solar and wind dwarfs the rest of the world.
At the same time: what is the production of new solar panels and wind turbines in the US and the EU? Negligible in comparison (for solar anyway), yet both regions still consume huge amounts of coal and there isn't even an increased push to install more renewables.
@knud More solar panel and wind turbine production = more usage of fossil fuel. That's it.
-
The important question is: how would Chinese emissions rise if they were _not_ also world leaders in renewables? Their installation of new solar and wind dwarfs the rest of the world.
At the same time: what is the production of new solar panels and wind turbines in the US and the EU? Negligible in comparison (for solar anyway), yet both regions still consume huge amounts of coal and there isn't even an increased push to install more renewables.
@knud
True, but in the US, coal represents about 5% of electricity production, whereas in China it's 55%. And, each year, China opens up 6 times more coal plants than the rest of the world combined -
Even with coal electricity the energetic amortization of solar panels is 1–3 years, hence until then they cleanly replace fossil electricity production, after that they are zero and provide a net reduction of carbon emissions during the remaining 15-30 years of their lifetime.
@knud
There's nothing remotely "clean" about solar. Just because something is less dirty in one area does not make it clean. Modern tech is inherently toxic. We must seek to radically reduce energy use. -
@knud More solar panel and wind turbine production = more usage of fossil fuel. That's it.
No, because after 2-3 years they have produced more energy than the fossil fuels that went into making them. And after that timespan they reduce the need for fossil fuels.
-
@knud
There's nothing remotely "clean" about solar. Just because something is less dirty in one area does not make it clean. Modern tech is inherently toxic. We must seek to radically reduce energy use.Demanding currently impossible solutions while demonizing actual partial solutions sounds great but will not solve anything.
EOD for me at this point, sorry.
-
@knud
True, but in the US, coal represents about 5% of electricity production, whereas in China it's 55%. And, each year, China opens up 6 times more coal plants than the rest of the world combinedI need to correct this: coal was used for 17% of US electricity, gas for 40%:
United States Electricity Generation Mix 2025 | Low-Carbon Power Data
United States's electricity mix includes 39% Gas, 17% Nuclear and 17% Coal. Low-carbon generation reached a record high in 2025.
(lowcarbonpower.org)
-
No, because after 2-3 years they have produced more energy than the fossil fuels that went into making them. And after that timespan they reduce the need for fossil fuels.
@knud In 2030, expect to see magic! @gerrymcgovern
-
Demanding currently impossible solutions while demonizing actual partial solutions sounds great but will not solve anything.
EOD for me at this point, sorry.
@knud The actual solution is to use less energy, period. Transitions have always been a smokescreen to, in fact, use more. @gerrymcgovern
-
I need to correct this: coal was used for 17% of US electricity, gas for 40%:
United States Electricity Generation Mix 2025 | Low-Carbon Power Data
United States's electricity mix includes 39% Gas, 17% Nuclear and 17% Coal. Low-carbon generation reached a record high in 2025.
(lowcarbonpower.org)
@knud
Sorry, got my figures confused. China accounts for 55.8% of global coal consumption. The U.S. ranks third at 4.8%.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-worlds-biggest-coal-consumers/ -
@knud The actual solution is to use less energy, period. Transitions have always been a smokescreen to, in fact, use more. @gerrymcgovern
@dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern I support this. Let’s take smartphones for example: do we need a new smartphone every 2 years, or one truly great smartphone that will hopefully last for 15-20 years? Because the way Android (~70% of the mobile OS market) handles multitasking is literal trolling at this point.
Likewise, a fraction of novel videogames actually needs fancy 3D graphics but this is literally a niche way of having fun with your friends. IMHO this is symptomatic in the US of the “bowling alone” trend – the collapse of associations. If one was part of a union they could just repurpose their Windows 10 computer and install Bazzite on it instead of trashing it.
We don’t need to consume less, we need to consume better.
-
@dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern I support this. Let’s take smartphones for example: do we need a new smartphone every 2 years, or one truly great smartphone that will hopefully last for 15-20 years? Because the way Android (~70% of the mobile OS market) handles multitasking is literal trolling at this point.
Likewise, a fraction of novel videogames actually needs fancy 3D graphics but this is literally a niche way of having fun with your friends. IMHO this is symptomatic in the US of the “bowling alone” trend – the collapse of associations. If one was part of a union they could just repurpose their Windows 10 computer and install Bazzite on it instead of trashing it.
We don’t need to consume less, we need to consume better.
@oceane We need to consume less. I'd love to live in a world in which pay phones and water fountains were abundant. And in which I don't have to use my phone on an increasing number of sites in order to access them, period. Or be forced to use websites to do basic financial transactions.
-
@knud
Sorry, got my figures confused. China accounts for 55.8% of global coal consumption. The U.S. ranks third at 4.8%.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-worlds-biggest-coal-consumers/@gerrymcgovern @knud @dnkboston
How is that consumption calculated and allocated? One of the reasons why the UK managed to reduce its carbon footprint was relocating energy intensive production to the Far East. If we count the carbon emissions for stiff made in China towards the carbon footprint that consumes/buys that stuff, the figures might change dramatically.
-
@gerrymcgovern @knud @dnkboston
How is that consumption calculated and allocated? One of the reasons why the UK managed to reduce its carbon footprint was relocating energy intensive production to the Far East. If we count the carbon emissions for stiff made in China towards the carbon footprint that consumes/buys that stuff, the figures might change dramatically.
@tschenkel
This has been the claasic story of the Global North and the Global South for centuries. The essence of imperialism and colonialism is the outsourcing and hiding of harms. We now have green colonialism in Green Sacrifice Zones, where the greens annoint the mining olligarchs like the priests used to do -
@dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern I support this. Let’s take smartphones for example: do we need a new smartphone every 2 years, or one truly great smartphone that will hopefully last for 15-20 years? Because the way Android (~70% of the mobile OS market) handles multitasking is literal trolling at this point.
Likewise, a fraction of novel videogames actually needs fancy 3D graphics but this is literally a niche way of having fun with your friends. IMHO this is symptomatic in the US of the “bowling alone” trend – the collapse of associations. If one was part of a union they could just repurpose their Windows 10 computer and install Bazzite on it instead of trashing it.
We don’t need to consume less, we need to consume better.
@oceane @dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern
We DO need to consume less, by consuming better... -
@oceane @dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern
We DO need to consume less, by consuming better...@martinlentink What do you mean by better? @oceane @knud @gerrymcgovern
-
@oceane @dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern
We DO need to consume less, by consuming better...@martinlentink
We need to consume much better and much less. I saw this quote recently:"Less stuff. More fun."
-
@martinlentink What do you mean by better? @oceane @knud @gerrymcgovern
@dnkboston @oceane @knud @gerrymcgovern
As an example: the fact that they can use renewable energy isn't the only advantage of BEV's: they use less parts, parts that can be made to be easily replaceable and therefore much more durable. But I'm far from a product design guy. Just think we should build stuff to last. Just like we need to build relationships, institutions and companies to last.
